Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

A link to a DAB page

List of snakes by common name links to the DAB page Sonoran. Is this a duplicate of Sonoran sidewinder (5 lines above), or a different species? Narky Blert (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert:, it's certainly just a fragment of a name, not a full name, and can be deleted (which I have now done). Plantdrew (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - that was my guess, but it's good to have confirmation. Narky Blert (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes

There is an RfC regarding recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comments: Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?. Inviting anybody who watches this page to contribute their thoughts to that thread.

WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 83.2% of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Reptile taxonomy question

Itasuchidae has a messed up species box. I see now it might be a bit messy, with Template:Taxonomy/Itasuchidae previously existing but then getting deleted. The deletion edit summary noted to use Template:Taxonomy/Trematochampsidae instead, but that redirects to Template:Taxonomy/Peirosauridae. Should the Itasuchidae page exist at all, or should it redirect somewhere? And if it should exist, what should its species box parameters be? Enwebb (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The taxobox of Metasuchia lists Itasuchus as a subdivision (with no placement to family). The taxobox at Itasuchus has Peirosauridae as the parent. I don't know if Itasuchidae should be recognized, but related articles are inconsistent in how it is treated. Plantdrew (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The history is described in a bit more detail in Trematochampsidae#Taxonomy. It seems the family Itasuchidae was dropped because the original relationship defining the family wasn't supported in later studies. Pinheiro et al (2018) ressurrect the family with a new formulation. The article contradicts itself in the defintion of the family. The results and discussion seem clear on the defintion and sister relationships, but the abstract says something different. In general the abstract is poor, as it misstates the polytomy, gives a different sister relationship to the main text, and doen't mention the new combination for the material that is the main subject of the article.

If the latter is valid taxonomy, the template for the family should be reinstated here. The taxobox certainly needs a better parent to indicate a crocodylian nature. But what is considered an appropriate taxonomic authority for extinct crocofyliformes?   Jts1882 | talk  10:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Another link to a DAB page

Uropeltidae links to the DAB page worm snake; a problem which was first spotted in May 2017. Can any expert here solve the puzzle? Narky Blert (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Rfc Patternless whistling frog (Eleutherodactylus diplasius)

Dear members in Project Amphibians and Reptiles, I would like to hear your opinion regarding the status of Eleutherodactylus diplasius. An article was created under Patternless whistling frog (Eleutherodactylus diplasius), and apart from not follwing standards for an article, I think, based on Wikispecies article, that this is not a valid species? Please also see my comments at creators talk page: which may later have an answer from the user:

Dear Benjamin Mitchell, your article Patternless whistling frog (Eleutherodactylus diplasius) seems to lack some of the general standards for a Wikipedia article, but what I want to ask, are you sure this is a valid species? At Wikispecies (please see species:Eleutherodactylus wetmorei it is regarded as synonyme for Eleutherodactylus wetmorei. I think one of your mentnoed sources is IUC (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/195008/0), but I dont think IUCN are really a good taxonomy source? It seem some of the other sources goes back to 1973, and at least one of the sources you have listed, (http://www.dcnanature.org/lesser-antillean-whistling-frog/) is referred to another species, Lesser Antillean Whistling Frog (Eleutherodactylus johnstonei)? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Dan Koehl (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: The species has an item at Wikidata at wikidata:Q4668453. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It is a valid species – see the Amphibian Species of the World 6.0, which is the main source of taxonomy for amphibians in Wikipedia. IUCN mostly follows Amphibian Species of the World, albeit with some delay. Micromesistius (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @V:, I guess thats a very good answer, so maybe theres no need for more, unless other opinions arise, . In the meantime, Ill move it to the scientific name Eleutherodactylus diplasius. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is recognised as a species at ASW6 and on Amphibiaweb. The notes at ASW6 suggest it is considered part of the Eleutherodactylus wetmorei species group, so the position might be subject to change. But I see I was too slow with this comment.   Jts1882 | talk  16:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

... and I see I was too slow to move it... :) Dan Koehl (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I made the Eleutherodactylus wetmorei artice in Wikispecies back in 2008, and I didn't revise it since. In the same year, 2008, E. wetmorei diplasius was elevated to species status (E. diplasius) in the paper: "Hedges, S. B., W. E. Duellman, and M. P. Heinicke. 2008. New World direct-developing frogs (Anura: Terrarana): molecular phylogeny, classification, biogeography, and conservation. Zootaxa 1737: 1–182." (see this PDF). See page 64 in this paper. Therefore, the species Eleutherodactylus (Eleutherodactylus) diplasius is indeed valid. Mariusm (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)